involvement in the 2012 campaign. then, david korn talks about his latest book on the obama administration. later, we discussed the future of afghanistan. "washington journal close what is next. -- "washington journal" is next. host: tomorrow, the supreme court will go through three days of arguments on the health care law. the nine justices will need steely nerves to buck up and noise in the case. how the federal government wields its power over states. c-span will be the one place you can listen to the argument in their entirety. the supreme court releases the same day audio beginning tomorrow at noon.

you can watch us on c-span, c- span radio c, and c-span.org. santorum one in louisiana. the president is in south korea this morning for a nuclear summit. he included a news conference within the lra and dick cheney is recovering after the heart transplant yesterday. the former vice president has been on the transplant list for the last 20 months. we will begin with this question -- who speaks for the republican party? this is posed in the "new york times." the numbers are on the screen. you can also in the conversation on line at twitter.com/cspanwj

or journal@cpsn.org or facebook.com/facebook. the question is posed that we want to ask you on this day after the louisiana primary with an eye on the table primary coming up. the outsourced party, who speaks for the republican party? the answer is that everyone does and therefore, nobody does. it is no great mystery republicans have fallen prey to one of their favorite tactics of capitalism. their party has been outsourced with a focus on new media, including radio and fox news. we will ask you about that this morning. the results from louisiana showing that rick santorum

winning with 49% of the vote. 91,000 votes for rick santorum with 4200 precincts reporting in. 27% 4 mitt romney during new to gingrich getting 16% or just under 30,000 votes. ron paul getting 6% with just over 11,000 votes. some of the headlines -- victory was two to one over mitt romney. with nine wisconsin in early april, you are one of the real key states, this is from their paper. rick santorum is on the campaign trail with the etch a sketch. we have more coming up as he tries to drive focus on the primary in wisconsin which will be key in early april. let us get to your phone calls. ron from california -- who speaks to the republican party?

good morning. go ahead. we will try one more time. are you there? caller: this is john. good morning. you know, one of the things that kind of bothers me is that we still have not resolved the issue in america with electronic voting machines and the proprietary source code. i am not sure if santorum won down there in louisiana based on any kind of voting on electronic voting machines. but, this issue has been going on for the last several years. the politicians talk about it. c-span does not talk about it. i am questioning a lot of these people.

are they there legitimately? that brings up the larger question when we come down to the elections later this year. >> -- host: thank you. "usa today" -- who speaks for the gop? this was in 2009 after barack obama was elected. republicans are divided. even the most basic questions are hard to answer. who speaks for the gop? the question which many americans do not have an answer to according to the 2009 poll is among the reasons the party is sagging. a 52% of the service could not come up with a name when asked specifically the main person who speaks for the republican party. whether it is a photograph of rush limbaugh or one of the leading republican presidential candidates -- candidates, the

question is, who speaks for the gop? that is what we're asking. we turn our attention to the phone to talk about the results from louisiana. caller: good to be with you. host: 8 two 21 victory for rick santorum. this is front-page -- a 2 to 1 victory for rick santorum. this is the front page. what did the results tell you? caller: romney still has a huge problem with evangelicals. the rodney folks did a great job of lowering expectations. -- the romney folks did a great job of lowering expectations. polls have shown that santorum had a double-digit lead. this was sort of expected.

because it was expected, there was an enough attention. -- there is not very much attention paid to it. everyone expects romney to be the nominee but he is struggling in the states that are -- that any republican will win in november. host: what is the difference between ohio and what we're seeing in louisiana? caller: demographics. 80 percent of the electrode -- electorate is evangelical. louisiana is a poor state. they have the highest percentage of voters who are under $30,000 per year. they went 5 to 1 4 santorum. louisiana is not a great state for the front-runner. host: let us look of the

delegate count. right now, mitt romney has 560 delegates. rick santorum to hundred 73, newt gingrich, 135, and 54 ron paul. 20 of the 40 delegates were at stake yesterday in louisiana. caller: only 20 were at stake, which is now very many -- which is not very many. that is why you did not see as much coverage. there is a lot of back-and-forth about whether romney will be able to get 244, which is the number he needs to secure the nomination. the romney folks think that they will learn some -- earn some and lose some. by june, they will reach the magic number. host: mitt romney issued a statement yesterday. we are very pleased with or

second place showing in because it exceeded 25% of the vote, this entitles us to pick up delegates said that to the lead. every day that passes with president obama in the white house is a missed opportunity for america to get back on track. from newt gingrich, he says he is staying in the race. caller: gingrich is the real loser. he is no longer a spoiler. louisiana is a state that if he is going to stay, he needs to do well there. his third-place finish shows that voters are leaving him and a rallying behind santorum is the main alternative to romney. host: on april 3, wisconsin will be the big prize. there is a primary in maryland and washington, d.c. santorum is spending part of the weekend campaigning across the state. what is different in wisconsin from what we saw in ohio or illinois where romney has won?

caller: wisconsin is a battleground. it should be a good state for both of them which is what it will be competitive. it is a mix of minnesota and iowa. you have a question in eastern wisconsin -- the of western and eastern wisconsin. this is more industrial and more manufacturing-space. --manufacturing-based. they will both be very strong. it is a good proxy for the republican electorate. host: we are talking with james hohmann of "politico." who speaks for the republican

party? is there a single person outside of mitt romney or rick santorum who currently speaks for the party? caller: no. the gop is girding for a big battle in 2013. romney will lose and you have this huge power vacuum in 2013. it will be even worse than it is now. it depends -- mitch mcconnell and john boehner think they speak for the party but so does rush limbaugh. because there is no clear person who speaks for the party, the white house has every incentive to elevate someone like rush limbaugh. this becomes more frustrating as republicans try to figure out what the path forward is. host: to buy very much for getting up early and sharing your expertise with our audience. -- thank you very much for getting up early and sharing your experience with our

audience. host: from twitter -- the emotional right speaks for the republican party. john from indianapolis. good morning. caller: good morning. my concerns are that the right people who want freedom in this party are losing out because of the cultural war and the obamacare and his administration. they're pulling people to the left. i do not think the party is looking clearly at the fact that the amount of taxes we have to pay, especially for obamacare, are increasing. for my personal situation, for my own care, that tax will go up

to 10% because my wife has breast cancer. obamacare basically takes us and process in the trash can -- throw us in the trash can. because my taxes will go up, they do not have a candidate who will win the nomination. i would rather have someone who would fight for our freedoms and i have talked with other medical providers and the kind of agree with this. we need somebody who will fight for our freedoms instead of telling us to be strung together in this obamacare world. we are afraid of it. host: thank you. on that mention, here is a story

in a photograph of mr. romney signing the health care law back in 2006. behind him is the late senator ted kennedy. the headline -- kennedy's influence haunts romney's career. today, as a republican candidate for president, he is courting conservative voters, a constituency that does not look kindly upon mr. kennedy or the romney approach to health care, which will come under scrutiny again this week when the supreme court takes up the challenges to a similar measure championed by president obama. another note from the state journal in madison wisconsin -- madison, wisconsin. a look at the role of the mormon church, the church of latter-day saints and its influence in wisconsin with the upcoming primary on april the third. next is gilbert from birmingham, alabama. who speaks for the republican

party? caller: yes, sir. good morning. thank you for c-span. the voice of the republican party is being driven by the likes of rush limbaugh and fox. the committed date of ideology and biologic -- dialogue of these people are driving the party. today is my birthday. host: to live for the call from birmingham. and next as a viewer from new york. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. i like your red tide. -- tie. that is a complement. i think sarah palin is a big person for the republican. i heard about the and hbo special about john mccain and sarah palin. this was explained to me by a,

you know, people who were smart enough to interpret it well. she was extremely uninformed and yet, you still see her up there as a big leaguer in the republican party. i would like to finish with a comment -- my sympathies go out to the republicans whose wife had cancer. he did not like obamacare. i do not mind calling it obamacare even though that is a derogatory name. i have been listening to -- the supreme court will be jumping into the mix. i have been listening to a lot of back-and-forth about obamacare. the more i hear about it, the more i think it will be a wonderful thing for the country.

i think the exchanges will bring costs down, including four democrats and republicans. -- for democrats and republicans. it boggles my mind -- this is complicated legislation. yet, it is a major move to begin to get under control health-care costs. the politics -- on cnn there was a wonderful special on health care. it was out wind that it is really politics that is raising the cost of health care -- outlined a that is really politics that is raising the cost of health care. we need to learn more about obamacare and we have a lot to look forward to. host: thank you for the call. a reminder, when the court releases the audio, which will

happen at about 1:00 p.m. tomorrow afternoon, we will then be posting the audio on our website at c-span.org. it will also be hearing on c- span3 as soon as is released and we will be airing at primetime on c-span. it is on radio, also. xm 199. c-span.org. in advance of this oral argument, we put together a poll asking you about some information regarding the u.s. supreme court. among those surveys from the c- span poll, 95% of those questioned are interested in the supreme court proceedings. 86% say they should allow cameras for the health care oral argument. 74% say they should allow chemists for all oral arguments. this was conducted in mid march. it is available on the web site with all the details that c-

span.org. "la times" -- the california primary is not until june. mitt romney is ahead by double digits. the survey conducted by the newspaper and uc-davis. running gain support in gop -- bryhni gagne c.o.p. supporting california. enthusiasm is lukewarm for written -- mitt romney. who speaks for the republican party? next is marked, from maine. good morning. caller: thank you for broadcasting and rebroadcasting the tea party meeting. i thought that was fascinating. i am a lifelong republican, you know, a private citizen. i started in grade school. that was a long time ago. i will be 65 in may. textbook has been a

example of what happens when the eastern liberal part of the party, the rockefeller wing, in cages and all kinds of eye gouging and nastiness. ever since goldwater was never reach it ever since goldwater was not backed, maine has been -- in every sense main was not backed, maine has been a crazy place to be + . the conservatives are the ones who have the heart of the party. we believe in the constitution and the rights of individual people. you would have to be in very gullible -- he would have to be very gullible. a previous caller said that

obamacare was really great. petitionsgismund's -- here who say they will not live under this. physicians here who say they will not live under this. this is a government control issue and all of the republicans are saying we should very definitely -- this is a power pyramid. that is what it really is. it is to do with the political control of the american people and a lot of the brutal bureaucracies. especially, you know, the hiring of the 16,000 irs agents. they did not hire 16,000 health professionals. they hired the agents so they can take your door down and say, where is your health insurance? that is not a pleasing prospect.

i do not know how much chance the traditional republicans in maine have to be heard these days, but mrs. snowe walked away and the race for the seed has some fascinating possibilities. host: thank you. we have to move on, but thank you. six ways the justices can rule on health care law. a look at some ways the decision can come down again. this is not just a symbol -- single decision. "cq" looks at what the court is deciding. a supreme test of the federal power. at the state of the president's signature is not all that is hanging in the balance this week as a supreme court hears oral arguments on the 2011-2012 health-care overhaul. this goes beyond the question of congress's power to regulate

under the commerce clause. the case addresses overarching fundamentals about how the federal government wield its power over state and also, how the judiciary will authority over those elected to govern. host: the question we are asking is who speaks for the republican party. on twitter -- i am beginning to think that the democrats listen to fox news and to rush limbaugh more than any other group they pretend to be so informed on these two. we are asking is because kevin baker posted inside "the new york times beca/" here is an absurd. -- excerpt/ . [video clip] >> i do not endorse candidates until i am ready to endorse candidates. i do it when i personally feel

like i can and i have not decided who i support amongst the conservatives. when people call here who have already made their decisions and insist that i make a decision, what they're really saying is they want me to back the person they like. i understand that. here is a fact for you, and i mention this at the top of the program. 70% of the republicans polled are split over the map. but, they know they do not support romney. the reason is simple -- romney is not a conservative. he is not, folks. but, you can argue with me all day long. he is not. host: that was last fall on something he has been saying frequently. mitt romney has done a conservative -- is not a

conservative. debbie is on the phone from michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe that, as far as the republican party is concerned, the people speak more for that party then actually the representatives that are there. i think that is a big difference between them and the democrats. you have people like nancy pelosi and barney frank and different people being pretty outspoken and forceful with what they have to say. i think that the republicans tend to be more willing to listen to what the people have to say a. host: mark from california. good morning. caller: good morning to you. i completely agree with the caller before last.

i hit -- i think to speaks for the republican party is big money. excuse me. agreed. -- greed. people that do not care about religious right, and as far as obamacare, i do not agree with that. personally, i think we should have a single care. host: thank you. from nancy in california. republican line, good morning. caller: those that do not speak for the republican party in -- unions thugs. how about hezbollah and hamas. ? they both contributed to obama's campaign.

"polotico." and america. america does not speak for republicans. how about the socialists and the marxist? they do not speak for republicans. i will tell you speaks for republicans. the people. we have to return to the people. c-span does not speak for the republicans. look at what you have to read from. 90% of everything is written by absolute constitution-haters. it is absolutely insane to even watch any tv anymore. the people are connecting you know -- cbs, nbc, msnbc, all of them do not speak for the republicans. host: doesn't this indicates

that our progress is transparent from all points of view? caller: i have had a very hard time getting on c-span for the last two years. very difficult. host: i am glad to hear you. thank you for being patient and i appreciate your call and comments. this is a question posted -- is chris matthews the voice of the democrats or it schultze -- ed schultz? >> -- host: dick cheney is recovering from a heart transplant. he had been on the transplant list for the last 20 months. he has been in the state of hearth -- in the last date of heart failure. he is recovering from -- now. he is doing comfortably. the next couple of weeks will be critical to ensure that the vice

-- for rice president is able to except his heart transplant -- former vice president is also able to accept his heart transplant. elisabeth is joining us from california. good morning. caller: good morning. i think that one of the real problems is that most of the republicans are the worker bees and there are out busy having their jobs and supporting the people that are not the worker bees. i do not think anybody has their time to give up their life to speak for them. i was raised democrat. when i became -- graduated from college and started working, i was still a democrat.

monday, my father sat down with me and he said, you know, things evolve and our country is evolving and humanity is info -- humanity is evolving and technology is evolving. he said, you know, the democratic party used to be the party of the people who worked really hard. the republican used to be the party of the rich people. i think we have to rethink this because it is my observation that the democratic party is now becoming the party of the people who do not want to work and they have all the time in the world to stand on the corner and demonstrate. the republican party is the party of the people who actually are in the middle class of people who actually go to work, raise a family, and they do not have time to stand in the public square and just give speeches. i think the republican party is having a problem finding a speaker. i am now an independent because i am tired of the tug of war.

i do not think that a family -- if my mother is fighting one way to the left and my father is fighting one way to the right, that will tear apart the family. the republicans and democrats are tearing apart the country. host: thank you. the republicans needed reprinting so they claim to be the tea party? three -- the gop died after bush. the same people and the same issues. once there is a republican president a nominee, he will be the speaker of the party. there are many voices now will have varying opinions. it is a cheap shot to say that rush limbaugh speaks for the entire party. that is what the liberals would have you believe. this msnbc speak for the democrats? does bill mahr? host: next is from covington,

georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, i think what the last lady was talking about is that there are many organizations. [unintelligible] it would be nice if he would first inquire as to the producer is and what their education is? if you do not do that, you will have an unbalanced report. [unintelligible] host: who would you want to see on either individually or organization that you have not seen on the network that you

think needs to be better represented here on c-span? caller: we have a best evolution the results in many stories. i do not have the exact number. on the other hand, by democratic party, when i was a child, it was franklin roosevelt. when we launched for d-day, we prepared the whole nation first. here's never been an outing -- [unintelligible] he should have something like that. the fact that he resists punishing anything suggests he does not like our processes.

he said he did not like the constitution. the constitution -- we have justice is going outside the wall to interpret the constitution. host: thank you for the call. i appreciate your comment. send us an e-mail anytime if there are people that you think need to be better represented. our e-mail address is a journal @c-span.org. devin baker -- kevin baker asks, who speaks for the republican party? the heart and soul is been handed over to republic -- radio talk-show hosts and other outside interests including the fox news channel. you can read this from page 5.

nytimes.com, you can also find it there. the president is in south korea. he arrived there over the weekend 40 days of talks to focus on the issue of -- 40 days of talks to focus on technology. pyongyang is deepening its isolation in the international community if it proceeds with a nuclear rocket launch. here is more from the president this morning. [video clip] >> regardless of the north korean leadership, what is clear is that they have not yet main debt strategic pivot where they say to themselves, what we are doing is not working. it is leading our country and our people down a dead-end. many of you were there and it is like you are in a time warp.

it is like you are looking across 50 years. this country has missed four years or 50 years of progress. in all, is a country cannot feed its people effectively, -- you know, if a country cannot feed its people effectively or make anything of use to anybody and has no exports other than weapons -- and even those are not ones that in any way would be considered state of the art. if it cannot deliver on any indicators of well-being for its people, you would think you would want to try something different. i do not get a sense they have made that decision yet.

but, my suspicion is that at some point, that is what the north korean people will be looking for. they do have that opportunity. when they make that decision, i know i speak for president lee, no one will welcome its more than we do. -- it more than we do. it is in our interest to see every country provide prosperity for its people. there are certain things that just a network and what they are doing does not work. host: the president was in south korea and he also visited the dmz zone. tomorrow, we begin negotiations on nuclear technology in china and iran. is the coverth story of "cq weekly." we continue to have coverage of

the comments in korea. he is back in washington tuesday and wednesday. back to your calls on the issue of who speaks for the republican party. chris says, listen closely to ron paul and he will make so much sense. your head will spin. next is matt from north carolina. good morning. caller: high. how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: i do not see how rush limbaugh has any right to speak for the republican party. i am 26. i was raised republican. i voted for george bush my first time i was able to vote. i think there is such a division between people in the u.s. today that we all need to open our minds and unified. we do not have to be against each other so much.

if you think back to the clinton years, nobody liked it, but he put out a plan to cut spending and raise taxes and that led to the biggest economic boom in years. i do not think there has to be such division. if newt gingrich and rick santorum would drop out of the race, mitt romney would have a chance of beating obama. host: thank you. and jodie says, mitch mcconnell said he hopes the president will fail. that is all they have, all. -- hope. from d.w. -- the focus should be on the think tanks. the republicans more so than anyone else. think tank speaker the republican party.

-- think tank speak for the republican party. you can send us an e-mail at the journal@c-span.org or to in the conversation at twitter.com/c- spanwj. good morning, jake. caller: yes, sir. i would have to say that, as far as mitt romney and rick santorum, it seems like the republicans are trying to turn america from a democracy to a theocracy. they have got so much religion in their politics and it is kind of scary, really. i mean, if you look at the other countries like iran and saudi arabia, anybody that has a fifth grade education knows that the

mormon thatis and garbage. -- the mormon religion is garbage. rick santorum, this guy is just nuts, dude. telling people that colleges are indoctrinating people. teaching them sacks and knowledge and he wants them indoctrinated with methodology and santa claus. host: appreciate your perspective. "the new york times" looks at health care reform. there is a photograph of people already camping out outside the u.s. supreme court in advance of oral arguments. only about 50 seats available to the public. over the weekend, many people, might bethe miwhom placeholders. this will continue tuesday and wednesday. a reminder that here on c-span,

c-span.org and radio, as soon as the arguments are released, the same day of you is released and you will be able to hear it and watch it on the c-span networks. c-span3 is your place for tv at about 1:00 depending on the exact timing. also, c-span.org. we will read your the show. tomorrow on "washington journal," we focus on the three days of oral arguments getting under way at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow, tuesday, and wednesday. back to your calls. if you want to check out kevin baker's peace online, go to nytimes.com who speaks for the republican party? there is a poll focusing on the same question. bob from missouri is next. good morning. caller: good morning, guys,. . i have been watching this story

about a year now. it seems like anybody who has anything to say is welcome to speak for the republican party as long as they stay with the fear factor because it has worked so well. keep americans afraid and you are going to win. they have them scared about obamacare. host: bob hung up. thank you. bill says, no one has been for the gop. the backing should be filled by speaker boehner to keep the republicans generally focused on issues. next is a caller from florida. jacksonville, good morning. caller: yes, i am calling to tell you might views. -- my vies. please letews. please let me speak. all of these people are calling it you are asking who speaks for

the republican party. let me say this -- i am a typical american. i am a black american. i love this country. there are a lot of people like myself who speak for our party and they are the solid majority. we have no voice because our voices are drowned out by the liberal news. you all say that fox news speak s for us. no, they are just as partisan in a way when it went to the partisan. we do and have fox news or rush limbaugh. -- we do not have fox news are rush limbaugh. we really stand for the country to be free. free from all of this progressive noise that wants to take this country in a way that

i have never, ever seen this country go. c-span, one more remark. please. i sit here and i have retired since 1994. i have listened to c-span since that time. i of seeing it go the opposite -- i have seen it go the opposite direction. i have tallied 10 to 1 before a poor republican can get on the line after listening to all of these liberal newspapers. "the new york times" -- what you think they are calling to say? who speaks for the democrats? who speaks for them? we speak for the republican party. thank you. host: tt well. -- thank you. brett favre -- centcom its 49% of the vote compared to 27% 4

romney. gingrich did 16%. ron paul at 6%. 1144 delegates needed to get the nomination on the first ballot. 568 delegates for mitt romney. 2734 rick santorum. bill kristol has this -- to 73 for rick santorum. 273 for rick santorum. guess what, candidates adjust their message and the course of political and campaigns especially when moving from one stage to another. fehrnstom may be overly confident about the ability of a

campaign to start over again, as if your opponents will not be there to remind you of pass statements, and as if the voters' minds can simply be wiped clean. even for the gifted campaigns and silver tongue to politicians, resets are not easy. there is a toss say we want to pay attention to and this is the obituary this morning from inside "the washington post." the house clerk that took the role calls for votes to enter world war ii passed. he brought the word to an end. this is on december 8, 1941, the day after the attack on coral harbour. he was a congressional clerk who took the roll call in the u.s. house of representatives voted to declare war. he was seated steps away from fdr when the president gave his famous day of infamy speech. [video clip]

>> december 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy. the united states of america was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the empire of japan,. . no matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the theiran people anin absolute might well win. host: this is again from inside "the washington post." it was mr. swanson was their four years later when the house announced peace. he read the message of the japanese surrender.

he was 99 years old and he passed away last month. his obituary is found this morning inside "the washington post." will take a short break. when we come back, we converts with -- we are joined with david corn. every senate, we take the morning programs and allow you to listen to them on c-span radio. nancy calo is keeping track of that. >> good morning. every sunday afternoon, beginning at noon, season. your readers 5 network tv talk shows. -- c-span 3 faris 5 network tv talk shows. david appears on four of the five. also appearing on the "meet the press the," ryan's wide search -- brian switzer.

"this week." abc's michele bachmann is on there. cox new centerior said to pm. -- fox news airs at 2:00 p.m. florida republican governor rick scott and lindsey gramm. at 4:00 p.m., rick santorum and paul ryan and chuck schumer. a five talk shows are all brought to you as a public service by the network and c- span. this begins at noon eastern time with nbc. 1:00, abc. to a cot, fox news sunday. 3:00, -- 3:00 to a cot fox news

sunday. -- 2:00 fox news sunday. down the us as an actapp or go online to c-span.org. >> on monday, the supreme court starts three days of hearings on the constitutionality of the new health care law. here the oral argument for yourself in its entirety as the court releases audio at around 1:00 p.m. eastern each day. with coverage on c-span3 and c- span radio and that c-span.org -- and at c-span.org. our coverage starts monday morning with "washington journal." then, the oral argument on c- span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: i want to welcome andy roth. good morning. guest: thank you for having me.

host: the stock about some of these primaries. -- let us talk about some of these primaries. senator lugar was elected facing a primary challenge and you weigh in on this. guest: we have endorsed richard murdock. this raises more about senator lugar. like you said, he has been around since the '70s. almost as long as i have been alive. from the very beginning, he has focused on bailouts and more spending. one thing we're mentioning is that back then, the national debt was less than one trillion dollars and now it is over 15 trillion dollars. basically, we are saying maybe it is time for somebody new to step in and represent indiana. host: any concern that dick

lugar could win -- lose the primary guest: : there is very little -- was the primary? guest: there is very little concern. there is a long record of voting for the stimulus and obamacare. these are a lot of things that indiana voters like. host: let us look it this graphic. the republicans are in the minority with 47 seats. the republicans have 51. derick two independent -- there are two independents. in ohio, brown is facing a reelection battle. in virginia, there is the fight and then claire mccaskill. guest: judge mandel -- josh

mandel is also funning. he is -- running. he is a fiscal conservative. brown is to the left of almost all the democrats in the senate. this provides a stark contrast between -- on policy. thus, ohio is a -- plus, ohio is an important state. the turnout will be high. with obama and the gop nominee at the top of the ballot, this will be very serious race. in virginia, you have got george allen, who is the likely gop nominee, who is going to go against tim kaine, the former dnc chairman. the two candidates with a very extensive records where the voters will have an opportunity

to see two very different candidates. in missouri, things are a little bit unsettled there because the gop primary is unsettled. you have former state treasurer sarah steelman and todd aiken. once this get settled, the eventual nominee will be very competitive against clerc mccaskill -- claire mccaskill who portrays herself to be a moderate democrat. missouri may not like those. host: if you look at olympia snowe stepping down because of what she calls a this function within the senate, she talked about partisan politics, would you rather see her as a republican in the senate or see that go to a democrat? guest: this is tough because if it worked and olympia snowe -- if it were olympia snowe, she has the ability not just to vote

back, but undermine conservative efforts in the senate. she is on the senate finance committee. she had the ability to stop tax cuts from advancing out of the committee. if she were a democrat, there would be the numbers that would allow that to pass out. this is what happened in to the century. in modern republican -- this is what happened in 2003. it is hard to tell whether that would be better than evea democ. republicans -- democrats are trying to gain a majority. that is the top priority to think about. host: let me have you respond to arlen specter. he joined us this thursday. "cannibal" -- i am sure you have read a little bit of it. here is our interview. [video clip]

>> there out to defeat senator dick lugar. lugar isar -- idcdick one of the best centers today. he will not change his stride. he will not bend to the will of the far right so they are out to defeat him. host: andy roth, your response? [laughter] guest: senator specter has his opinion. i believe we are at a very serious moment right now. what has been going on and the people that have been in the senate had taken us down a road that we need to stop. i mean, like i said before, we have gone from under one trillion dollar deficit in the 1970's to 15 trillion, which is over what our gdp is. once you passed that one where you are over 100% of kit -- of

debt to gdp, you are in a serious situation. we cannot talk about how somebody is a -- you know, they have been there for awhile so they need to stick around and help finish the job. me to get fresh people in there who are -- we need to get fresh people in there who are committed to policies to stop this. host: let me have you respond to the comments -- "the washington post." even as romney campaign was trying to stomp out the brush fire, you know what he meant. his rivals reporting wider -- lighter -- [inaudible] guest: it is hard to comment on

that. there is a lot of frustration going on within the republican party about the presidential race. i think that is very clear that newt gingrich and ron paul do not have the infrastructure to be beaten in this race. the club for growth's position has always been -- when we realize there was not a candidate in the race that was committed to those issues, we decided to just sit back and take an educational role and education where the voters -- and explained where everyone was on the issues. host: we're talking witha. -- we are talking with andy roth. i want to talk about etch a

dketch. -- etch a sketch. [video clip] >> you can shake it up and we start all over again. >> >> is there concern the pressure might force the governor's to go so far to the right it would hurt with moderate voters? >> i think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. it is almost like an etch a sketch.

>> if i were like this past the dream act, which i veto it? the answer is, yes. >> planned parenthood, going to get rid of that. >> i was a severe conservative republican governor. >> i think you hit a reset button for the 12 campaign. everything changes. everything changes. everything changes. it is almost like an etch a sketch. you can shake it up and we start all over again. >> for someone to run with republican after their name. i am not going to change my positions by virtue of being in a presidential campaign. i think the people across the commonwealth did not stand so much for republican as it does reform. at the time i crafted a plan in

the last campaign, i was asked is this something you have inhalation do? i said, no, this was crafted for massachusetts. it would be wrong to adopt this as a nation. it is a kind of mandate. it is a requirement. in order to get a tax exemption normally did, you have to have health insurance because we want everybody in the system. i have always opposed abortion. i believe abortion should be safe and legal in this country. when asked, will a preserve and protect a woman's right to achieve -- to choose, yes. let me speak candidly about where i stand. i support the second amendment is the most basic and fundamental rights of every american. we do have tough gun laws in massachusetts. i support them. i believe they help protect us and provide for our safety. you talked about reagan-bush. i was an independent. i am not trying to return to reagan-bush.

everything changes. >> it is almost like an etch a sketch. you can almost shaken up and start all over again. >> andy roth, all taking aim at that, by eric fehrnstrom. >> it is true. mitt romney has his unshakable reputation as a flip-flopper, someone you cannot locate his official position on all the issues. that is frustrating. i think it will be a big issue in the fall campaign if he is the nominee. however, when every other president running for reelection, it is always a referendum on the president's policies and whether the country wants to continue those policies or not. mitt romney has a problem and credibility and where he stands on the positions, but at the end of the day, this race is about whether obama deserves four more years or not. >> "new york times" is it a fair

headline? >> obviously, in massachusetts, it romney ran against ted kennedy and took a lot of liberal positions in order to try and defeat ted kennedy. i assume that is what they are referring to there. it just goes back to the positions mitt romney took back then and the ones he continues to take now in the flip-floping credibility issue. >> and this question, is sunday take, ken mitt romney hit the rest head on his campaign? he writes, it is easy to understand why the etch a sketch, was described as the perfect metaphor for presidential candidate who struggled to answer the question of who he is and what he believes. >> he can try and he can try to reset the s -- etch a sketch and tried to go forward as a

conservative candidate, but nobody is going to let him forget all the previous errors he has made. democrats are going to keep reminding the public, keep spending money on tv ads. romney, somehow, it needs to make a credible argument these flip-floping positions he is taking are over and he needs to move forward with a solid principled stand on all of the issues. >> our phone lines are open. you can join in on the conversation or send us an e- mail to journal@cspan.org or a tweet. our guest is andy roth, with club for growth. this past week we heard from paul ryan, his budget plan that was receiving a lot of praise from republicans including speaker john boehner and a lot of criticism from democrats. >> the club for growth came out in opposition to the ryan budget. we're one of the few groups on

the right that have done so. before i explain why, i want to let your viewers know the ryan budget is called the rhine budget because they think paul ryan wrote it. i think it is appropriate to call it that because he is the chairman of the house budget committee. but he is handcuffed by the 13 appropriators, the chairman that run the subcommittees for the appropriations committee. they are very big spending republicans. so this budget has a lot of more spending in it than what is being portrayed in the media. there is some great reform second, reform, tax reform in it. at the end of the day when you look at the fiscal year 13th part of the budget, it does not go far enough. the reason why we opposed it is because it does not balance for another generation. we need to balance the budget this year, if not next year. this does not balance until 2014. that is remarkably long time to

wait to finally balance the budget. second, last year the debt deal, as everybody may remember, required a lot of spending cuts, whether it was in spending caps or through the sequestration process were automatic cuts per year. this budget and wants that. i think it is no longer a fiscal issue, but a credibility issue. if you cannot stick to the promise he made last year, then you're in trouble with the voters. >> bob is on the phone from virginia. caller: good morning. i have a question, several quick questions. would you be willing to divulge on tv this morning who your main contributor is to your group? also, i want to know what you think of mr. cheney's newhart after 71 years, he has won. t think they will give some of the money back they stalled for

eight years? maybe it will be a democratic cart and will reject him. guest: you can go on to the ira's websites to see who gives us money. we are a c4. we do have to reveal who our donors are. host: how does that to me doing? guest: his offer a lot of good policies. been very out front trying to take a leadership role on economic policies. host: next, marion, massachusetts, a republican line. caller: i think who was the true conservative is the question you're asking.

i am just a long wolf. i have seen mr. romney where he did not take a paycheck as governor. he clearly took the deficit when he entered office as governor of massachusetts. he left with a surplus. he also pushed through less intrusive government on small business for the subchapter s corps as far as the workers' comp. if you're just one person, you did not have to pay for the costly workman's comp for family businesses and just single soul proprietor ships. which was clearly a very good thing to make business a little more prosperous in the state of massachusetts. clearly, his other two rivals in the presidential election, gingrich, he deftly took $1.6 million from fannie mae and freddie mac, whichever one it

is, as a consulting fee. so we have seen him in the government's -- feeding out of the government trough. santorum, i do not know too much about him, but i clearly see mitt romney as a pro-business candidate. and a true conservative. he was pretty much banging heads with the liberals of massachusetts. john kerry and barney frank want to make the inner city dependent on the liberal programs in the inner cities. host: thank you for the call from massachusetts, republican line. guest: he made some good points about mitt romney has executive experience. he overdid the salt lake city olympics. he said that. he did a lot of good things as

governor of massachusetts, although, the caller pointed out very good things. one of the bad things was the romneycare, he enacted a smaller version of obamacare. but about romney, he made the pro-business, but that is not always good. pro-businessmen sometimes bailing out businesses. sometimes, spending more money in order to attract businesses. the club for growth takes a pro- free market approach where we are not pro-work or pro- business. we just want the free markets to flourish. in romney's case, we think he may be more technocratic the well lot of conservatives are hoping for, meaning, he will look at a balance sheet or look at a problem and assess the debits and credits or costs and benefits, and then make an analysis without any fundamental issues about economic liberty underline that. so he takes a very

straightforward approach and assesses things without even thinking about how they may impact the constitution, how they may impact natural rights, and so on and so forth. we hope he will start obtaining that sort of mind-set where he thinks about the principles that underlie conservative policy. host: last month, comparing the tax plans among the candidates and the president. individual taxes, and to the mitt romney plan, he would cut the current individual tax rate by 1/5, bringing the top rate to 28%. rick santorum, proposes two tax bracket system. top tier 20%. those a the bottom, at 10%. >> we agree fundamentally with all of them that tax rates need to go down, especially in corporate tax rates. i think there's remarkable opportunity for democrats and republicans to come together for corporate tax reform. not a lot of people are talking about that.

a lot of democrats want the corporate tax rate to go down to 25%. you can pay for that, so to speak, by clearing out a lot of loopholes that were made for special interest. we think corporate tax reform is a bit -- is a good idea. rates need to go down to a least 25%. romney brings it down to 28%. that is close, but we hope he does it more. and santorum, he wants to bring the corporate tax rate down to 17.5%. but he wants to zero and out for manufacturers. manufacturers we think that is just giving them a special interest hand out. it also allow for a gaming. what is manufacturing? if i make a wage, to pay zero in corporate taxes? or if i help make a widget, can i claim i manufacturer? it has a lot of opportunity for gaming we do not like. even though lores taxes, we do

not approve of that plan. host: we're talking with andy roth from club for growth. a lot of comments about the etch a sketch at which showed a few moments ago. host: is there an ideal club for growth candidate? guest: before the race started, we tried as much as we could to get a couple of candidates in who we thought would be great. one is congressman running for governor in indiana. he had an excellent record on our issues from the time he has been in the house. unfortunately, he passed and is running for governor. we think very highly of senator jim dement who has been represented in south carolina and the -- for about a term and a half. we do not have an ideal candidate now. we just hope the conversation

moves in a very pro-growth direction. host: what about if mitt romney is the republican nominee? who should his running mate be? guest: there's been a lot of talk about marco rubio from florida. he has a lot of attractive qualities. he comes from a swing state. he attacked the hispanic vote. i think the one against him is he does not have a lot of experience. but he has been very positive and very impressive so far in the senate. another candidate, paul ryan. he knows the budget inside and out. he has a very good message about what we need to do in order to fix entitlements, but i think you could be slightly polarizing because democrats have been beating him up on his budget for the last two years. to me, does seem like the top two candidates. my former boss, a key said, pat toomey would be an excellent

choice. he knows the budget just as well as paul ryan, and he represents a state, pennsylvania, the republicans need to pick up if they want to win the white house. host: could a romney-toomey ticket when the south? guest: i think so. romney cannot win the south right now. all of those states are going to santorum. but he could provide the conservative have to with toomey on the ticket. host: we are seeing a lot from super pacs. guest: quite literally, on the first commitment, we believe if you have the resources and you want to let your voice be heard, you should be able to spend it

however you like. frankly, there is an argument that we're not spending enough on the race. with so much on the line, with so much debt that we have is a country, we're not letting the voters know exactly where all of the candidates are on all of the issues. this may be an unpopular view, but i welcome the super pacs. i think we need to have a lot more reform and campaign finance and order for that to flourish. host: good morning, danny, democrats. caller: good morning. mr. roth, i would credit the club for growth more than any other organization for setting the agenda of the republican party. you guys have done an amazing job doing that. and i want ask a serious question. we know that grover norquist can up with the idea of starting the beast in order to destroy the entitlement programs as being the only way to do it, the only

way the public would ever stand for it. for years, even setting the policies of cutting tax revenues. that is why we have such a huge debt. you have driven tax revenues down and down and down. no republican would dare talk about raising taxes in any way. i am wondering, do you really think you can cut entitlements and survived it? i mean that literally. in my town, their 70-year-old people, 80-year-old people that are relying on those checks. if you cut them, they're going to get guns and start shooting republicans. i am serious about this. you need to think twice. i know you developed this fantasy idea of what you can do and using this think the public is just going to take it. they are not. host: thank you. a guest: this idea we want to cut entitlements is not necessarily true. first of all, the path we're on

going ahead is unsustainable if he thinks people are one to grab guns and revolt, that could happen if we just do nothing. we simply do not have the money in order to pay for all of these entitlements. there needs to be some sort of bipartisan agreement. something needs to be done on entitlements. rather than cut them, we need to reform entitlements. that means going over to a premium support plan on medicare or creating personal accounts for social security. that does not deprive the recipients of those benefits, is just reforms the way we pay for them. host: a couple of comments from one of our viewers sang -- guest: we do not subscribe to class warfare politics. if somebody is remarkably rich

and they're the best qualified for the presidency, because of the policies they and spouse, then we would endorse them. we think the republic should do so as well. host: on friday, campaigning for the primary in louisiana, can in a distant second. this headline, at the president's health care law is an unfolding disaster. it is a disaster for the american economy, but to busting an atomic program, and a dramatic intrusion into our lives. yesterday, attorney general of virginia from a tea party rally that we covered here on c-span, here's part of what he had to say. it is about the health care debate that will ensue tomorrow, tuesday, and wednesday in u.s. supreme court. [video clip] >> we catalog 21 of the

violations of the law or the constitutional court orders by this president and his administration. i said then, and it has been completely unchallenged by the left -- which is interesting, inhibition by silence -- that he and his the ministration represents the greatest of lawbreakers to ever run the federal government in our lifetime. [applause] the rule of law itself is at stake. are we going to be a government of men or loss? we will find out in november. host: andy roth, health care debate this week. guest: i think we're in this purgatory state waiting for the supreme court to make its decision on the bill itself. oral arguments will come up. they will decide. i think the decision will largely get how ago ford with obamacare on the books. the club for growth hopes the

supreme court finds the individual mandate is unconstitutional. there is this thing called the seven ability clause. in the bill itself, there was no stability meaning if the justices, supreme court justices will the individual mandate is unconstitutional, they have the ability to strike down the entire law. that is what we support and hope will happen. until then, i thing it is just -- i think it is just the ongoing public rhetoric. host: good morning. caller: can you hear me? good morning. i'm not a conservative or liberal, but the paul ryan medical plan just does not seem realistic. the reason why is none of the plan is realized for 10 years. the idea that 10 years from now going for premium support plan

-- which he says will not be that painful. by the way, he does not want them to experience it for 10 years, i think is unrealistic. people are demanding medical care and demanding it on affordable terms. for some reason in this country, medical costs are much higher than any other country. "washington post" had an interesting article with a show the united states and every medical procedure other than cataracts was way more expensive than every other country. until that kind of situation can be reformed, this medical care situation is going to overwhelm this country. we pay more gdp and procedure. i do not think premium support or competitive alternatives i have heard about come close to anything happening in other countries. so why is it that people just cannot pragmatically deal with this issue and address it? i think it is a really big

question. maybe he could answer why procedures are so much more expensive in this country than any other country? host: this follow-up tweet -- guest: the caller made a good point about how paul ryan's medicare reforms do not happen until 10 years later. i believe that is one of the reasons that conservatives should oppose or take a critical eye at least to the rhine budget. we are running out of time. we do not have 10 years of medicare in order to reform and. this is why the press operators want to push things back as far as they can. they do not support all of these reforms like paul ryan does. that is one thing. the reason why medicare costs are going up -- out of control, we have a fee for service

program. you go to the doctor and medicare pays for it. there is no sort of examining and the critical about what you should get and how much it should cost like when you go to the grocery store. we think the proper way to reform medicare is to do some sort of premium support where the patient and the insurance company had a one-on-one relationship rather than the patient through the government and medicare. we think that will keep costs down low. plus, we like attaching your insurance policy from your employer and allowing you to take it wherever you go. plus, we believe in getting rid of interstate mandates. you should be able to buy insurance from what ever stay like. if you live in new jersey and ohio is offering a policy like, it should be able to pick that. there are a lot of boys were economic competition work in the favor of the patient, and it is

the taxpayer -- right now program not doing that. host: the outsource party, this is by kevin baker. "usa today" asking the early question in 2009, who speaks for the republican party? kevin baker writes, everyone does and therefore, no one does. he also points out mitt romney's, the republicans are finally coalescing around that romney's candidacy. the longer-term problem will remain, how to maintain a coherent mass political party when some individuals are empowered as never before to redirect to their own e personalnds, whether it is rush limbaugh, fox news side, chris matthews and others. >> this is a pretty simple question and answer. whoever is in charge, whoever has the white house has a very powerful soapbox. the president always speaks for the party he or she represents.

the reason why there is a lot of confusion on the republican side is because they do not occupy the white house. speaker boehner, obviously, it is in charge of the house. you do have a lot of pundits that are trying to push the party in the left or right direction. i think the sort of question always gets laid upon the party that is not in power. this goes to free speech issue. lucky said, chris matthews, for the left, we have rush limbaugh and laura ingram. that will happen no matter what. host: good morning, tennessee, republican line. caller: you seem to be willing to throw out the good to wait for the perfect. you are never going to get the perfect candidate. if we do not get obama out of there, he will turn this country into a neat socialist country. the gentleman talking about medicare, obama has taken $500

billion out of medicare. where are the people with their guns over there? and the other gentleman wondering why we're so much more expensive than other countries? because we have half the people in this country that pay for nothing. they show of the hospital to get their free care, even for a headache or bellyache. the rest of us pay the bill. that is why it is so expensive in this country. obama is going to make it worse because he is just one put more people on their that pay for nothing. they have already said it is double what he forecast it would be. if you had vetted obama have as much as you had republicans here on c-span, they would not have charlie rose and tom brokaw sitting around saying, well, you know, we do not know lot about this president. we don't know anything, but we know now. he will take credit for the keystone pipeline, which is a lie. he will take credit for all reasons george bush released.

here on c-span, you seem to -- well, you're in reelect obama mode. host: thank you for the call. i respectfully disagree with you about this network. as always, we appreciate your calls and comments. guest: her very first, and, i do not necessarily take issue with about how we're looking for the perfect and we're going to jeopardize the entire election. this race is all about obama. the democrats will try to make it about mitt romney or whoever the gop nominee is. at the end of the day, every voter will be faced with, do we want four more years or go with somebody new? host: riverside, california, democrat line. caller: first, i want to ask mr. roth about his comment about the

president speaks for their party. but no one wants to bring the bush and his last 10 years or eight years. no one wants to go behind his policies. if the president speaks for his political party, then bush spoke for yours. you cannot run away from that or use an etch a sketch. guest: i agree. caller: the last caller calls and every day or every other day from tennessee, florida, from any other southern states. i am sorry, but nobody agrees with -- you are not one to balance the budget off the backs of the poor and middle-class. we are hurting. we cannot afford any more of the republican party. all of those bills that have passed in the house and we

wonder why you're passing them, understand republican party has a plan. but now you want to take over the senate so you can get through some of those bills that came to the house. thank you. guest: her first point was dead on. the republican party, george w. bush was the voice of the republican party. the gop lost in 2006 precisely because his policies were not conservative. he was changing the brand, the gop brand from lower taxes and limited government to big government. huge budgets and huge deficits. i think the voters responded in 2006 with the mid primaries, then responded in 2008 by electing obama. this simply did not want any more of that. i think this election is going or is a continuation of that. new republicans and democrats and all voters, do they want to continue all of this big spending or do they want to find

somebody who will stop that and turn it around? host: how much influence to have? guest: the club for growth? it is case by case, i think. in the house, we of the ability, the club for growth act does, to go into house races and find candidates that we like. because of the dynamics of house races, i think less than conservative republicans in the congress should be worried if they do not follow the correct pro-growth policies. we have a scorecard. there is a noticeable effect for when we do score something. is sometimes changes the outcome. trade adjustment assistance was a bill the house republicans were going to bring that last year. they chose not to once the club for growth scored it, because we

said it was a program that spent too much and did not need to exist at all. so republicans brought that back. later there were able to pass it, but at the very beginning, i think the club for growth is largely responsible for pulling it off the calendar. host: andy roth clubforgrowth.org. a couple of stories we want to bring up to date, a profile of a lawyer getting a lot of attention, john henry browne, he is being viewed by some of his colleagues as a renegade among defense lawyers. and look at the case he will present against staff sergeant robert bales. here is new information from the associated press and the washington post on afghanistan. some money distributed over the weekend, u.s. military officials did pay $916,000 to relatives and villagers allegedly shot by the u.s. soldier. it averages out to about $50,000

per individual. writing -- and a blood man is a common way to settle disputes stemming from violent deaths in afghanistan. the money could diffuse the intense anger from the march massacre that took place in the southern part of the country. in south korea, president of a making a visit to the dmz zone is to begin a two-day summit looking at newt technology. -- nuclear technology. he warned north korea the country is risking a deepening of isolation in the international committee if it proceeds with its long-planned rocket launch. these photographs from overnight as the president traveled to the dmz zone. bill clinton and george bush also visited in the past. when we come back, david corn has a new book "showdown."

it is sunday, march 25. >> in march 1979, c-span began televising u.s. house of representatives to households nationwide. today, our contact the politics and public affairs, nonfiction books and american history, is available on tv, radio, and online. >> my personal appreciation that i wrote great debt to others reinforces my view that a certain humility should characterize the judicial role. judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way

around. judges are like umpires. umpires do not make the rules, but apply them. the role of an umpire and a judge is critical. they make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. nobody ever went to a balkan to see the empire. >> c-span, accretive by america's cable companies as a public service. >> on monday, the supreme court starts three days of hearings on the constitutionality of the new health care law. here the oral argument for yourself in its entirety as the court releases on yoke around 1:00 p.m. eastern each day coverage on c-span3 is used in radio and c-span.org to add your comments. our coverage begins monday with "washington journal." the oral arguments on c-span3. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: david corn author of " showdown." why did you write it? guest: to explain what was going on inside the obama white house and was probably the toughest periods of the white house. it picks up with the midterm 2010 elections when you can argue the president was at the bottom point of his presidency. the house democrats had just lost 63 seats. the republicans had taken over the house. john boehner was coming in as speaker. the bank terminus announces in the -- advances in the senate. people were starting to write off the obama president the bush presidency after what seemed to be a promising start. i was lucky enough to talk to people in the white house, obama's inner circle, and sort of chronicle what came after that.

in the lame-duck session, then the very up and down year we had in 2011 with the budget fight and the debt ceiling fights, but of course things like egypt, libya, bin laden raid, which i think set up the campaign. this is sort of a pre-campaign book in ways that examines the with the president was thinking and how he was seeing his own presidency and how he was seeing things as he was trying to tee up is very decisive 2012 election. host: the book "showdown." you brought that bill clinton. this morning, the was a biography back in the 1990's, has the roots of two presidents, born on august 15 years apart at opposite ends of the baby boom generation. bill clinton in 1946. barack obama, 1961. both came into the world under circumstances which made it

surprisingly unlikely that either boy would grow to be president of the united states. one sentence i will respond to -- among the characteristics, the young clinton and obama shared, a competitive will. guest: as far as i understand it, david is writing a book about the young barack obama. he is an expert on that. what i found in doing this book was the image we have a barack obama the we get from the media, from interviews and from observing, is a little different than the true barack obama. i do think -- he has gotten a bad rap from being a bad negotiator, equivocating, looking for compromises. but i do think he has this fierce competitive well, which is tempered by a real pragmatic streak. the sort of burden of office in terms of government responsibly. so there are times when he is in

deep sort of try to cut the best deal and not looking for the big fight. there are other times when he is willing to throw the dice. a good example is on the bin laden raid. i tell the story in the book that on thursday, the thursday before the raid, which was on a sunday, there was the last meeting of his national security advisers. a very small circle of people knew about this. the cia, previously told the meant there was a 60%-80% certainty the guy in the compound was bin laden. they have given the information to a separate team. they went to the intelligence and said, you know what? we think it is only 40%-62% chance. it got a lot of people in the room nurse wondering if they should go ahead. as joe biden has says publicly, he was against it as was bob gates.

some people wanted a missile strike from the distance. a minority of the advisers in the room favor of the helicopter strike because everyone else thought it was too risky. the intelligence did not bear going through this. he said, i am going to do this. he said there is a 50/50 chance. one of his aides later said, people do not always see this and the president, but he is like the athlete that at the end of the game, he wants the ball with 20 seconds left in his one attack the half-court shot because he is confident and fears in that way. i think you'll see this on the campaign trail. he is a fierce and vigorous candidate. i think what he draws the line and puts up his dukes, he is released and it to win it. that does not always come through and you have what he would call hostage situations, where he had to cut deals with boehner and mcconnell on the budget and debt ceiling in order to forestall a government

shutdown or financial crisis. i think when he has the space and the political opportunity to do so, he does relish a good fight. you saw that with the payroll tax cut. host: our first look inside the book "showdown." you point out a former obama white house aide put it this way -- bill clinton every day of his life got up thinking, what is the best argument today to the republicans? guest: and it went on to say, he gets up every morning thinking how i can get boehner to see it my way. he does want to get the consensus. another aide told me he is very progressive and idealistic in his principles about what he would like to see, what he wants to and towards. but he is very pragmatic and how to get there. he is willing to go back and forth when the wind is against

him, as a sailor would put it, to get to his northstar. in that way, he does not relish the fight. in some ways he is an odd combination of qualities. people sometimes do not feel they have -- do not know how to put their thumb on him. he has these very idealistic ames, which is were others would cheer, but a very pragmatic view of the world and how you achieve things either incrementally or by cutting the deals. i think it is hard to convey the grand ideas. we saw this with health care. when you're in the mud it tried to wrestle with the details, to get some form of consensus. but there was a great tennis. after the debt ceiling deal, use all the jobs package introduced, he adopted a much more populous and confrontational stance because he came to the realization -- some might say lake -- that finally, you could

not cut a deal with john boehner because john boehner could not control or speak for entirely his own caucus. therefore, he had to take the fight to the public and say, listen, there are two divisions and to the sets of values. use the voters are going to have to decide. host: george w. bush called it a something and barack obama called the 2010 elections a shellacking from the bookie right -- guest: the explanation they give for the first two years is they were so busy and overwhelmed with countering crises and dealing with policy matters and health care and the stimulus and all that that they're really sort of dropped the ball on defining these issues.

kind of thought by showing their getting a lot done in making congress work, even though it was a partisan fashion, that that would reflect well in the republic -- public would see that. after the election of 2010, they realize the made a mistake. then they got sucked into a budget fight that ran about twice as long as they expected. in the debt ceiling fight for it in each instance, they really believed -- in the debt instance, they believe if they took a stand and the government shutdown, or even worse, a financial implosion worse than in greece, that we would have a double-dip recession. the first and foremost obsession was to prevent any more economic harm, and they got stuck in these situations where they were arguing about debt and spending cuts and things that did not allow them to push their

grander winning a future message the president put out in the state of the union. then after that all cleared, there were able to spend more time messaging on the jobs bill and so on when they thought the gun was not to the head any longer. i think if you look at the poll numbers now, you can see on messaging, the kind of pulled ahead in a lot of ways than the republican party. host: butler, tennessee, republicans david corn line with. caller: i am what you call an eisenhower republican. i am an old man, a lot older than all of you and even corn. guest: i am not so old. caller: i have been around a lot more than you have, is what i'm

trying to say. i am a republican, but i do not recognize the republican party today. it is not the republican party. the democrats remind me of a case, the old saying, why do bring a knife to a gun fight? they have always struck me that way. i believe in obama because he is the most intelligent man out there. i know that for a fact. why theon't understand democrats ain't bringing this point of? to me, you are lame. guest: i feel your disappointment. i do think in the coming months you will see, as i said earlier, a fierce campaign waged by obama.

just as a small example, in the last day or so, the obama campaign has embraced the obamacare label applied to the health care initiative that their foes have used. in talking to his top campaign strategist, i really believe they think they can win a lot of the health-care fight that will come up during the campaign, particularly with mitt romney as the candidate. but they will say, listen, you can get free colonoscopies, your kids can stay on our plans, you cannot be thrown off because of her previous condition or you have hit the maximum amount of health care coverage from your insurance company. i think they saw the democrats in 2010 ran away from this because they feared the way was been defined by the right. they have a vision of being able to take this head on and at

least five to a draw on this or win. i really think watching of applying basketball, as we talked a few moments ago, he is a competitive purses -- person. he will do what it takes to win -- and i do not mean that in a negative way. host: them to get your reaction from the washington post article. rick santorum winning compared to mitt romney. pointing out the win in illinois, mitt romney's when, some in some as the likely nominee. do you see any scenario in which rick santorum could take as always to the convention? guest: if aliens land. no, i think he can take it to the convention. i think newt gingrich and ron paul and ticket to the convention. they can keep running to pick up a few delegates here and there. i think it is unlikely absent

something completely unforeseen that one of these guys can get to the convention with more delegates than mitt romney. i think the only question with this possible breach is whether they can keep mitt romney below 50% of the delegates. host: and you can see the delegate count. guest: it is a pretty big gap. the mitt romney campaign is right with the barack obama campaign was right bunker 2008. it is hard to argue with math. unless something totally unforeseen happens, he is on the path to get there. the fact is losing seven primaries to rick santorum, i don't think as much bearing on the general election. there are states that will go for the republican candidate no matter who it is, even though it is mickey mouse.

no one will win illinois because that is obama's home state. the fact santorum did so poorly there, is a much better indicator of what will happen in the fall if he becomes the nominee. host: a piece that connects mitt romney with ted kennedy, this photograph of mitt romney as governor of massachusetts son in the health care bill. the headline "kennedy's influence haunt romney's career." sang, tried to distance himself , mr. romney cannot escape senator kennedy's influence. guest: i did a piece in "mother jones" in the past for the found video ofi the bill signing ceremony. and it, mitt romney just praises ted kennedy profusely for the health care initiative. i answer -- i am sure she

mentions that in this article. i am stunned that newt gingrich's campaign and a santorum's campaign have not used that in a commercial attacking mitt romney. pirelli is every conservatives nightmare to see mitt romney standing next to ted kennedy and acting like the best of friends. it is just part of this albatross that mitt romney has around his neck during his campaign. >> back to the book. utah, the so-called cable chatter. you're right -- guest: the guy is human. he knows what is going out there.

he read and pretension to this stuff before he was elected to the white house and understands the importance, but a lot of interviewers have cost me, did anything surprise you when you did this book? i would not call it surprise. one thing that kantor over and over, the president has a lot of internal confidence in his long range vision, long-term ambitions and goals. he is constantly encouraging those around him not to be buffeted by the cable dispute of the nanosecond and sort of take the hits. an example in the book when the white house does something they know is going to drop a bad headline in the short run, but they think there is a long-term policy of political a drainage to doing this. the president -- the chief

adviser, they sort of like to keep their eye on a long game. they say, okay, take a deep breath. we know the press coverage is going to be bad. let's not go running around it. rahm emanuel was more plugged into that and more concerned about the political moment of the moment. sort of an interesting way to govern. it shows a bit of a gap between what you and i who cover this day in and day out focus on, and what you as a leader, as the president, how you to think about what you're doing. host: good morning, atlanta. caller: good morning. what i would like to say is this, grover norquist has more than one aspect. he has a policy where he is not one to let the democrats another

democrat. this is why you have of republican policies in place, medicare part c, the policies that mess up the post office and things. and also, this is what the democrats are not kidding their tax policies through. 3784 miss -- 378 former congressman are lobbyists. 43% who left congress are on k street. this is a problem. when democrats tried to put tax policies through, you have a very small group, what ever they does, they always vote against it. the democrats, they need to primary a small amount of these people. they could have got the public option through an could get the tax policy through. we're in republican policies. i will be clouded by nor book tomorrow.

guest: thank you for buying the book and thank you for your question. there is a lot about the internal democratic conflicts in your comment. people have very strong reactions to the tax cut compromise that the president cut in the lame duck session when basically conceded and allow the bush tax cuts for the wealthy to extend for two years. but in return, he got what was a mini stimulus, the unemployment benefits would continue, things republicans basically had held hostage. i think was a tough decision to do that. but the end of the day, he won from a policy perspective, and had a greater impact on the economy which is good for politics and americans. in the whole fight, even remember there were a lot of democrats and progressives on the hill who wanted him to take

it to the republicans and just have a standoff on that. i have a lot in the book about that. one reason they did this, the white house came to a calculation if there was a fight and a showdown on this, they would lose and perhaps enough democratic votes to lose overall. on a cup -- tough tax cut. so he felt like he was not meeting a unified party on this and amid a difficult. i think over the years there has been more corporate wing of the democratic party, more liberal progressive wing. they have clashed. in this instance, and it hard for the president to come out and have a tough stance to the republicans because he was not sure his own party would back him up. host: our guest is on david corn author from "shutdown."

this is the president and brought a 2011. he is on the phone with speaker john boehner with a football in his armed and wearing a black berry. guest: that was the night we almost had a government shutdown, when the budget fight was coming to a head. throughout the whole day -- it was very dramatic. jack woo was then head of the budget office and did not know whether the government would shut down or not. at the end of the day, he is on the phone with the hill with the chief legislative 5 negotiating, and on another line with people riding the government and dictating memos on how to do government shutdowns. that night the president was walking around from office to office with his jacket off and carrying a football, trying to figure out what was happening as the work cut in the last deal. the deal was sort of put together midafternoon, but it was not until closer to 10:00 at

night that boehner's office finally said, ok, and shook hands. no one knew what was happening. it was really -- it was one of the cruiser moments i think in government dysfunction because it was just -- a concern six months of spending. there were more -- there were never more than a couple billion dollars apart. there were hung up on the planned parenthood issue. every time it would have a deal, they would going to meetings after boehner in the president had met, the negotiators would meet on capitol hill and all of the sudden the deal would unravel and it would have to renegotiate all over again. it was a very tense moment. one reason it was so tense for the white house is because they believed if the government shutdown, it could really have a terrible impact on the economy. they were willing to do almost anything to prevent that from happening. host: another photograph from

your boat. explain. guest: he is visiting the martin luther king memorial that had just opened. i love this shot. i cannot take any credit for pictures in the book. there were all taken by the white them. that was a great shot showing what must have been a great and contemplated moment for the president. when i was there and he made it a point to show off that there was a bust of martin luther king in the room. he also has a program from the i have a dream speech. he gave him a framed copy. he has set up. on the floor of the oval office there was a rug with his

favorite sayings woven in. one was that the art -- art of history tends to bend towards justice. in the book i note that he is often in the room trying to come up with compromises that he thinks will advance his principles. but he is surrounded by these totems of martin luther king, which do not advocate a political compromise. it is an interesting juxtaposition. >> one of our viewers has this point on our twitter page -- >> yes, he worked on it and a lot of democrats were not in favor of the bill and now a lot of republicans are not in favor of that bill.

there were unfunded mandates for some. president obama has revisited it. even here other republican candidates bashing away at it. >> california, good morning, welcome to the program. >> the republicans won the 2010 elections by doing the same policies they had been doing since reagan. this trickle-down does not work and it has put us in the position we are in. this policy is what has created the massive deficits that we have. obama, who obviously cannot just change policies instantly, is also going to run up record deficits, but it may be a necessity until the economy gets going again. when the tax policy gets shifted to the middle-class, it hurts

them. the country was in much better shape when we did not have the super wealthy. guest: i was surprised by the paul ryan budget that just came out. basically it is a replay of what happened one year ago. i thought that at the end of 2011, that barack obama had gotten a leg up on republicans by arguing that if we are going to be dealing with deficit reduction, we need to have shared sacrifice. liberals on his -- on that side hated this, making changes to the social security cost of living and, in return, also having more taxes on the wealthy, corporations, millionaires, and billionaires', to close this whole and protect

the ability to invest in education, r&d, scientific innovation, so that we can compete with china and emerging economies throughout the centuries. i thought that his package was more attractive to republicans. but they came out with a budget a few days ago that was not enough to reply. we are drawn in again and mitt romney endorsed it. as a fundamental debate, with a new government and should they be involved in reinforcing the social safety net and nudging the economy in the right direction, making sure that there is more fairness in taxation. i know that in december 2010, one month after the shellac of november of 2010, this is how he

looked at it. he said the tea party would go too far and attack medicare and social security and tax cuts to the wreckage. eviscerating middle-class americans. because of that, they are going to give me the opening for a resurgence for a fair fight. even if the economy and unemployment numbers are still high. and that is exactly what is happening. >> we are talking to david corn, about his book, "showdown," and inside of the book you quoted his campaign manager, but it would not be shared with reporters who asked. but the his campaigns were always about the future. >> it was a conventional point

that you could try to litigate the past. mitt romney, when you were governor, how has it worked out, but when it comes to choosing the leader of a nation, we are usually someone -- looking for someone who will guide the nation forward and who represents our feelings and attitudes as a nation. and what we the country want. there will be a fair amount of fighting over who did what and where. in terms of overarching message, the president wants to talk about how he sees the country moving ahead against what he sees mitt romney and republicans wanting. mitt romney came out the other day and said that if we reelect of, we will be living in the middle ages within two years and

we will be under the threat of a nuclear iran. it was like a zombie horror film, the way that they had it. barack obama has since talked about his state of the union speech and gone to the more recent one in the state of kansas and his vision on what we should do as a community. >> there is this point from our twitter page with regards to the republicans in the midterm election -- host: body is on the phone from new york city. good morning, welcome to the program. >> i just want to say that i am by racial, like our president. mr. corn is a constant contributor of msnbc. everyone is entitled to their opinions.

i am conservative, not republican. i do not believe in these extreme thing, but mr. corn is on the extreme. republicans are not monsters. they have a different vision for our country and you should respect that, but you do not know -- but you do not. i respect the president. i am by racial, just like him, but you should respect people that disagree with you. >> i do not think -- you have a hard time going to the tapes and finding me calling paul ryan a monster. i think his budget proposal is wrong and i would love to see that argued on policy grounds. i would love to see republicans deal with health care without talking about death panels. there are a lot of real issues

to discuss their. without coming up with this excessive rhetoric, without saying that the president is a muslim. i write these books because i am obsessed with the intersection of policy and politics. this book is a narrative from behind the scenes and looking at how the president makes decisions on these grounds, not the best way to spend on these grounds. i think he believes strongly in how to the engage in good policy and governed at the same time. i am struck by how he has to deal with these crosscutting and conflicting demands. i wish you would read the book before you judge what you think it is going to say. host: daniel is on the phone. good morning. caller code good morning.

david, i am a big fan and have been following you for years. a small fact that hardly ever gets brought up, when george bush -- george bush left office there was a projected deficit as far as the eye could see. obama was elected in 2008. his first budget was in 2010. could you only imagine if he had waltzed into office like george bush didn't, with a half of a trillion dollar surplus? my second question, do you think that later in the fall, when the president is campaigning -- needs to appeal to the 40 million people that do not have insurance and tell him that the republicans already told you that they are going to take it away.

the kids under 26 on their parents' insurance plan, republicans already said they would take that away. he needs to embrace the health care reforms that he put in, because they are fundamentally good. and i am a big fan of c-span and david. thank you. guest: thank you for saying that. i know for certain that that is already part of the playbook in the coming months. you have seen them start to do this, the obama campaign, they have put together nurses for obama. just yesterday, friday, they started to put out messages to their volunteers and funders. calling it obama care, trying to appropriate that terminology that has been used by critics and foes. it is exactly the case the you just outlined.

have no fear, they want to win and they know that health care is going to be used against him. if not so much by mitt romney, then certainly independent advertising campaigns. they will be putting up a strong fight. host: your words -- striving to reelected president at a time of economic misery and profound popular doubt. it is a contest of great clarity compared to 2008. the more contrast, the better for obama. >> it is obvious, in a way. unemployment is very high. if you ask the country, the people in the country if we're going in the right direction or longer -- wrong direction, there is a split. these are negative indicators

for any incumbent president. mitt romney should be 10 points ahead and in a matchup with president obama right now, but right now the president seems to be leading, showing the weakness of the republican side. there are two ways to look at this election. will it be a referendum on barack obama? that is what republicans want. if it is, all mitt romney has to say is that unemployment is still too high. put me in and give me a shot. it will be a compelling argument to some. obama wants to make it a comparison. do you comply with this budget, tax cuts for the rich, going after medicare, or do you want a president who has brought down unemployment, gradually, and who

has a different set of visions and values? let's compare those. it seems that at this point in time, mitt romney, by embracing the paul ryan budget last year and this year, is allowing -- the more contrast that there is, the better he will be. this has led to stop the we talk about everyday and it is working to the president's advantage, at this point. host: we ask you about the gridiron dinner, which you -- we asked you about the gridiron dinner, which you attended last night. there is robert gibbs walking in, in a white tie and tuxedo.

first of all, what happened last night? what did you learn? and what was memorable? >> i learned that journalists cannot sing very well, except for a few of us. basically it is a series of skits put on by the gridiron club. they poke fun at democrats and republicans -- for instance, the skit about newt gingrich was them singing fly me to the moon. it was very funny. but then you have speeches on the democratic side, the republican side, without representing the ministrations. this time it was leon panetta, the defense secretary. republicans were represented by rick perry.

i have to say that it was quite funny and self-deprecating. everyone had the exact same reaction. that he might still be in the race today, if rick perry had hung in. host: can you remember any of the lines? guest: something like -- there is one podium here. "ice -- i studied animal husbandry. that is what rick santorum thinks gay marriage leads to." really sharp, and a good line, as well. "it is always interesting to stand next to mitt romney. i kept expecting him to turn to me and ask -- pardon me, do you

poupon"?great coy host: they denied cameras in the court, but the court to allow same day audio release. in this letter -- we request the you go further in your efforts to be transparent. guest: i do not think that we

were surprised by that. most of the journalists get up there, where funny costumes, and saying, and probably do not want it on youtube. i do not think you would either, and i would not if i was making a fool of myself in that fashion, because i do not sing them well. host: has the gridiron outlived its usefulness? guest: it is not the supreme court, nor is it a public or taxpayer funded institution. i do not think they useful or not useful is a way of judging it. people view it for its entertainment value. i do not see it playing a public role. but i am glad that what goes on there is open to coverage. and perhaps a good compromise down the road would be a public officials would appear. rick perry is a public official.

if their remarks were recorded or put out, you know, you would see that this is more about salinas then setting constitutional president. host: david korn, of mud -- mother jones. the book is a "showdown." thank you for being with us. guest: there is more information on my facebook page. host: appreciate your time. coming up at the clock, our guest is richard cork dry, the director of the new consumer financial protection bureau. during the program, we asked him if there had been any changes in financial institutions in the first six months of the existence of the bureau. [video clip] >> we have.

that has been interesting. many things have been -- achieved through a compulsory process, signaling more clearly to the market the direction you're going. there is a certain amount of interest in the businesses and in trying to get out ahead and understand what is expected of them. the fact that people understand that we are out there, looking at whether consumers are being treated fairly means that they're having to think more in their compliance regime about whether they are treating consumers fairly. we have seen examples where companies are bringing to us a couple of different settings. one is the simplicity and clarity of the agreements. we were pushing for that in credit cards and mortgages. we have institutions that have

signed up to work with us on their agreements and others who are bringing things to us on their own that represent shorter, clearer, simpler reading level agreements that are much more understandable and accessible for consumers. we are clearly stimulating the market on that. host: he is up -- richard kore is our guest in about 40 minutes, in about -- richard is our guest in about 40 minutes. we have your sunday morning broadcasts rebroadcast every afternoon on c-span radio. nancy, good morning. >> beginning at noon eastern you can hear a replay of five network television talk shows. the note today is that david + will make an appearance on four of the five programs. we begin at noon, with "meet the

press." then there will be haley barbour and then jealous. at 1:00, we air "this week." michele bachmann will be on. at 2:00, chris wallace and then paul ryan. at 3:00 it is "state of the union." david +, and rick scott, as well as lindsay gramm." he is a member of the armed services committee. bob schieffer talks with rick santorum at 4:00 p.m.. chuck schumer is the chairman of the democratic policy committee. all the shows are brought to you as a public service by the networks and c-span. beginning in noon eastern time with "meet the press."

1:00, "this week." 2:00, "fox news sunday." for clock, "face the nation. -- 4:00, "face the nation." even hear them in the washington area on c-span radio, nationwide on satellite radio, or online, at c-span radio. >> march of 1979, c-span began televising the house of representatives to households nationwide. today our content is available on television, radio, and online. >> i've personally 0 a great debt to others, which reinforces my view that a certain humility should characterize the role. judges and justices servile law.

judges and justices are like umpires. they do not make the rules, they apply them. their role is critical, making sure that everyone plays by the rules. no one ever went to a ball game to see the umpire. >> c-span, created as a public service. >> monday, the supreme court start three days of hearings on the constitutionality of the new health care law. here the oral argument for yourself as the court releases audio at 1:00 p.m. eastern each day, with coverage on c-span 3 and c-span radio. add your comments on c-span.org. coverage continues through the day with the supreme court and then the oral argument, on "c- span 3." >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome carter

malkasian, with the center for naval analysis. thank you for being with us. let's begin with the news of the morning. "the washington post," says the u.s. is awarding what many are calling blood money to the victims of the afghan u.s. massacre. averaging out to about $50,000 for each of those killed. guest: the use of money like that has been a fairly standard practice since iraq. when we make a tragic mistake or do something wrong, as occurred in canada are, we make up for it to the families, to show condolences and that we care, we have often given money when this occurs.

$50,000 is a great amount of money. something of that amount would have required great approval from headquarters higher up. compensation seems like a cold word for everything that has happened. host: so, the president has signed off on this? >> this likely came from the top. >> on the larger issue of the impact that this has on relations in afghanistan and how they view nato and the american troops, any impact? >> the afghans are tired of seeing things like this happen. the thing that struck many americans is that the impact of this event has been less than that of the koran. afghanistan has been at war for so long and had to go through so

many tragedies, the people have become dull to the violence and pain. the fact that people die, even in horribles events like that, is something that they have grown used to. but the koran is something they have been doing. it helps hold life together for them. it is the word of god. the damage to the qur'an does not damage to just one person, or 17 people. if you damage the koran, you are threatening everyone. >> what is the center for naval analysis? >> a think tank for the navy and marine corps. we do work that the government asks us to do that requires a certain amount of local expertise and experience in the field and in working with the

marine corps and navy with a certain amount of educational and scientific background. host: we're focusing on our involvement in afghanistan. our guest will be here to take your calls and comments. a review of the questioning before the senate armed services committee, john mccain send questions to john allen on troops in afghanistan and what it would look like now and moving ahead. [video clip] >> you cannot make a decision on force levels until the end of the year 2012, is that when you are telling this committee? >> after withdrawing 23,000 troops withdraw down, after moving through and conducting operations during the fighting season, in the aftermath of that, i need to be able to

evaluate whether that force structure will be the kinds of combinations of forces, plus the progress made with ansf to handle the operational environment of 2013. >> basically, in march of 2012, you have no opinion as to what our military presence will be in 2013? >> my opinion that this particular juncture -- >> what is your opinion that this particular juncture? >> that we will need significant firepower. >> 68,000? >> a good going in number. >> -- host: what is going on here? guest: he is not in a position to say what kind of forces he will meet in 2013. that until the fighting season is over, you cannot judge how many you will need in 2013, or

2014 itself. but then there is the election happening here as well. and i expect that people do not want to come out with full-blown strategy is at this point. host: dennis is on the host: dennis is on the phone from new mexico. go ahead. caller: our joint chiefs of staff and our generals in the military -- to have no idea how many troops they win be all -- they will be allotted in the coming year is on the separable. although the president is commander in chief, he should listen to the people in charge of our military. one more thing i would like to add on the soldier that went wrote and killed the innocent afghanistan people -- went rogue

and killed the innocent, afghanistan people. it was written that ptsd does not cause any kind of violence. i have had friends come back from war and they have experienced serious post- traumatic stress disorder with violence. we need to get on base with our generals and really listen to what they have to say or blow the whole thing off. host: thanks for the call. guest: i know it to be the fact that there is plenty of discussion going on about truth nmbers -- numbers. there are certainly discussions every day. there are discussions inside the pentagon. all the staff assessments, all

the discussions that go on -- that does not mean he is ready to say exactly how many are needed yet. the discussions are part of the process. host: part of the blood money -- let's talk about the blood money to the 17 loved ones -- 17 families who lost loved ones. guest: there can be various ways of making up for when someone dies in the afghan culture. money is one way of doing that. this is one way of accepting that something went wrong, not necessarily saying we are at fault, although i think we would certainly say that. afghan would accept this as a way of making up for damage that has been done as a way of healing wounds. that will not be enough in this case to entirely fix the issues.

it also takes a continuing interaction are part. the government needs to see that we are not continuing to make mistakes like have accrued over the past two months. host: he is the co-author of a number of books. he earned his doctorate in history from oxford, university -- oxford university. \ i have a question on the 9/11 commission inquiry. just a statement first, then the question. former senator bob grant from florida, a democratic senator on the intelligence commission, the co-chair, he informed bob kerrey of nebraska, also on the commission -- on to every 24,

they swore statements to the u.s. district court of manhattan. they both reviewed the spirit connection not this official commission exonerated, the king of saudi arabia. they were anointed by the british about 100 years ago. we are the ottoman empire, which may have been a good thing. any involvement in the 9/11 attacks, the saudis are claiming they have been dismissed and incinerated. connections made in florida and the l.a. by saudi families -- made in florida and in l.a. by saudi families -- it is interesting, the bae

connection. who is really funding al qaeda? the british have been in afghanistan for decades. host: thank you for the call. we will get a response. guest: throughout the middle east, asia, pakistan -- there are people who support terrorism and taxes, and do not share the united states view of the world. those people will, from time to time, provide money and even family members or encourage other people to join efforts against united states. they may single-handedly draw ideas and fund the ideas, which are teachings that other islamic countries would not agree with and other governments would not agree with. i cannot comment on that.

simply because we see various people from various countries taking action, it doesn't mean the country's support them. host: dave has a question. >> what about the u.s. troops who were killed after we apologized for the karan burning? how much money are they receiving? guest: that is a very tough question to answer. i do not know the details of what the afghan government is paying them or giving them. i suspect this non a similar process that is going on. the unfortunate thing about the enduring -- koran burnings -- there are so many people who do not understand why we are ther e. they do not have the interactions so they do not

realize we're not there to take over the country or get rid of islam. many people, because of the level of education in afghanistan, can be susceptible to others suggesting these horrible deeds. host: our next caller is from joseph on our republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? you can answer the question, but i will just ask anyway. is the afghan war going tees up a ball? caller: -- guest: that is an excellent question. the afghan war has used up a certain extent of -- over the past couple years. we have seen progress as things have been laid out. i would expect, for the next year or two, we will still see a good deal of fighting there.

for the taliban, 2013 and 2014, especially, our opportunity to test the afghan security forces, to see if they will crack or stand tall. especially after 2014, when we start to reduce forces, i would think the place would want to continue to find out if they can push back. host: what is field mikel? guest: the old nicole needs to be to set up a country that can hold the vast majority of the population outside the sway of the taliban, which really means that we are going to prevent al qaeda from having the ability to go into much of afghanistan, recruit people, form safe havens again, and do things that might threaten the united states. i do not mean to incite or suggest fear.

that is the objective. whether or not united states needs to do that, whether or not united states could actually let us go and deal with whatever threat are coming out of afghanistan here in the united states, that is a separate question that policy makers have to make. host: our topic is afghanistan. our guest is carter malkasian. thank you for joining us. caller: i have a couple of things today. i have seen them ask for patientce. the ambassador has asked for strategic patients. this sergeant bale thing -- the guy is a creep, in my opinion.

to me, it the force. seems like it is almost like a tet moment, where a psychological thing happens. is this a tet moment? is this a psychological thing with the american public? guest: it is a tet moment. when that happened, large numbers turn against the war, not like we have seen here. there was a question about how winnable afghanistan was. this has not helped the matter. we are not at the point where

people are just full-scale going to say what -- let's get out of here. we're is no doubt that the past can do a lot of damage. if we look at this moment to talk to or five months from now, it may look more like a moment and what is like a decisive turning point. we have had these kind of defense -- events. there has been a time where damage has been done to the decorum. there have been times where situations have caused civilian soon die. we have lived through them. i do not see the afghans saying the welcome mat is gone. they want us to leave right now. >> president karzai had some frustrations, but still wants us to help. are you guys going to stay? is it true that there will be no support from the united states?

they do not understand the details from all the conversation. i think there can be some renewed confidence. host: they call you personally? guest: there is a lot of question about potential terrorist attacks. one of our viewers says -- in large part because of involvement in countries like afghanistan. guest: the point of being in iraq and afghanistan, the amount it has cost -- unfortunately, it is something we have to live with. are we always at risk because we are in afghanistan? are we at greater risk because

we are outside of afghanistan. obviously, it is something i have discussed before. the federal government is not able to control the population. he will likely see more terrorist groups in that area. we know there are some in a bar afghanistan now. we know there are some that clearly operate in afghanistan. now, there is much more difficulty because the country of iran is facing increasing instability. if we had a counter-terrorism poised to, we would be able to spot any kind of al qaeda, terrorist activity. i do not think that is true. if you do not have some number of other forces in afghanistan -- they do not need to be huge

numbers of forces, but working with the government, the security forces, it is a tell on how they regain the countryside. from time to time, they can watch the strikes. more and more, they are concerned with protecting the base. host: what would you define as not a huge amount? guest: somewhere over 20,000, 24,000, would be the point. that is a fraction of what we had their -- had there today. host: welcome to the program. caller: highly effective are the forces of the afghans? how would the doctor rank president obama as commander in chief in terms of educating and maybe informing the american public about the stakes.

host: how would you rate the president? guest: hit me with the hard won first. president obama has a difficult task. overall, the strategy in afghanistan has been found. i think some of the messages perhaps could be a little bit clearer. i do not think that is the president's fault. i think that, a clear message that we are indeed reducing forces and not withdrawing entirely, we're standing beside afghanistan and we are going to help him after 2014. we simply are not going to how 128,000 troops at that time. i think that is the messes that will go across. host: do the callers talked about how our enduring the afghan forces are.

-- forces are? >> by 2015, they will mean much closer to that stage. i thought afghan forces fighting in surviving in battles regularly, i do not need fire support -- the afghans themselves have made incredible sacrifices, which we sometimes forget about. they are not there for six months or one year or even three years. they are there for their lives. the risk they take when they stand up against the taliban is a risk for their life. in his arrest for their family, that they might be killed or kidnapped -- it is a risk for their family, that they might be

killed or kidnapped, that there families -- their families might be in danger. these are random people that are selected from the sea of afghans. there are large numbers. there is a group of people that are dedicated to the movement in that country. they are willing to keep fighting, as long as they have standing next to them. host: rick says -- guest: to some extent, it will be the same. it has always had some degree of instability. the last 30 years have been particularly hard on afghanistan -- three years have been particularly hard on afghanistan. in 2014, we could get to a point where afghanistan is not seeing the kind of violence. host: our next call is lj from

atlanta. caller: i have a couple of points i want to make about the situation in afghanistan. i am of the version -- i am of that threatened. i spent -- i am a veteran. i spent a lot of time in afghanistan, in regional command north and regional command east. what i am concerned about is -- i understand why we deployed forces there in the first place. my understanding is, it was due -- host: we lost the call. i apologize. if you want to phone back -- guest: are not sure what he was going to -- host: dustin from san antonio, texas, good morning. caller: i was actually in afghanistan.

we were trained in ansf. there were weak sales and marijuana and poppy sales. people would be smoking it brought out on patrol. i have an issue with their discipline and their ability -- how do we expect to turn this country over to the ansf if they cannot keep from using drugs or on the battlefield? >> thank you for the question. i really appreciate the work you've done with the afghans from all working with them side by side. i know that is tough work. i think there has to be a focus on making sure they're not using drugs and they are not consuming poppy or marijuana during their operations. atomizers can step up, once they have a certain relationship with the commanders, to get these

people to not use drugs during operation. there are ways -- particularly forbade commuters. that is the time we need to apply little bit of political leverage to make certain changes. there are many things the united states wants to do in afghanistan. there are many changes we want to see happen across a broad spectrum of areas. good leadership is one of the things that really matters. we want to apply our leverage. host: she says it would have been a lot more effective if we lost after we toppled the taliban. it is the nation-building that has failed. host: i understand @ point -- guest: i understand that point well. sometimes, i think we forget and don't understand the rage that was caused on 9/11.

the idea of going to afghanistan and leaving seniors responsible -- people will look back to 1989-1990, 1991. we let go and the country went into civil war. that was the lesson of that time. what we needed to do was stay and help and do more things. i would argue that, in that time, state and aid was not nation-building. there are a decent number of mistakes in that regard. we did not stay involved in afghanistan. we did not build up an army that was strong enough to hold the country together. it is similar to iraq. we took the army apart. in afghanistan, we built a small army of 70,000. by -- there or -- we built troops after the korean war far

faster. there should of been advisers watching what was happening and reporting on changes. there are a lot of things we could have done between 28 01 and 2006. to avoid being on the path that we are currently on. host: are guesses with the center for naval analyses. a key part of the relationship has been the lack thereof -- our guest is with the center for naval analyses. [video clip] >> what can you tell us about where we stand on the issue of the afghanistan? >> there is frustration in these

event. these event have struck a blow at the core of the relationship. this president, president karzai asked to be able to speak to the afghan people about putting our relationship in the context of the long-term relationship. i understand his frustration. i understand if it was just one event you would never particular view on it. we have had several event of late, the urination video -- the burning of the koran, the shootings in punjawe. those are significant events. i believe he is committed to a relationship with united states. he was clear in that teleconference, at which i was in attendance with ambassador parker and the president. he was clear in a strategic

partnership. these incidents cannot be ignored. host: that is available on our web site, c-span.org. that is on the phone. welcome to the program. caller: i am looking and an article from "the new york times" i am sure your guests know about the children that are freezing to death in afghanistan, driven out of their homes by the war. this is one of the camps. it's like it was in world war two. did he does get a little fancy trip with the soldiers. fixtures in this article are horrifying. guest: the unfortunate thing is that people in afghanistan live in a very difficult environment. they do not live in the same kind of circumstances that we live in.

when i was in kunar, most people live on floors. they are lucky to have the carpet. they do not have the same sanitation that we have. i am aware of the impact of the cold this year upon afghanistan and how many children have died. it has been very prominent in the afghan news. i note our embassy and other people are trying act to make that better. of course in, the level of difficulty of the wife in afghanistan is quite mass. host: the pentagon sent our kids to afghanistan without a plan. they do not know what they're doing. they are creating terrorists. >> this is one of the columns that -- this is something one fears a great deal.

from 2001 to 2006, i questioned a lot of the plan that was there. the most recent plan, there is a plan there, whether or not it was sufficient is another question. i do not believe we are creating terrorists by being in afghanistan. we work for them as government officials and not simply people who want money from government projects. i have spoken to the mullahs, to four farmers, to people kicked off government land, other people who have done the same thing thomas scott, -- same thing, scott -- we have all spoken to many afghans. they are not saying americans are terrorists or infidels. they say that all countries and for 30 years of war. we are tired of fighting. we want to have a way out.

there is a number of government, the taliban. we do not know which way everything is going to go. host: malcolm on the phone from arizona. quick question. caller: i am reading the book, "the art of war." its and the doves in the military campaign are heard a block with speed, but have never seen any skill in a lengthy campaign. no country has profited from protected warfare. >> -- caller: sometimes, we end up having to fight tragic course. maybe the country -- the profit is not as quick. if you look at long wars. world war ii is not a short war. we are trying to defend something. we are trying to reach certain

names and keep certain things better for the united states. i would suggest this heartily. it is a short course that are more dangerous sometimes than the long wars -- it is the short wars that are more dangerous sometimes then along wars. they create expectations and a change things too fast. it was a short initial campaign. it has led to a lot of pain ever sense. -- since. host: thanks for your time. this week, our focus will be on the u.s. supreme court and the debate over health care. tomorrow, we will begin at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. david savage and john ensign -- jonathan turley.

live tv here, folks. live tomorrow morning. we will have coverage of the supreme court oral arguments that will be taking place tomorrow morning. the oral arguments -- the audio will be released tomorrow afternoon and we will have coverage monday, tuesday, and wednesday as the ordeal is released. -- audio is released. with that drug thank you for putting up with a last-minute ipad snafu -- with that, thank you for putting up with that last-minute ipads snafu. have a great week ahead. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]